Those Dangerous, Radical Democrats

Much has been written about just how deeply into extremism
and race-baiting the reckless billionaire frontrunner Donald Trump has led the
entire mob of Republican presidential candidates.

But what about claims by those on the right that it’s
actually the Democrats who have been taken over by extreme left-wing radicals
who are far outside of the mainstream of American politics?

Their damning evidence is that Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders,
a real, live socialist, is drawing increasing support for the Democratic
nomination, and that former First Lady, U.S. Sen. and Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton speaks just as passionately about increasing wages and
expanding opportunities for everyone, regardless of race, gender or class.
Republicans actually consider those radical, un-American ideas.

But despite all the damage Republican Gov. Scott Walker has
done, Wisconsin is still ground zero for such populist appeals.

Somebody had better tell those large, enthusiastic crowds that
Republicans don’t think they’re a legitimate part of politics anymore.

Republicans would have a lot more credibility in deciding
what qualifies as dangerous radicalism if they hadn’t spent more than six years
absurdly claiming President Barack Obama, a moderate Democrat, was some kind of
crazed, foreign-born socialist plotting to destroy democracy.

Milwaukee’s Socialists Ran a Clean Government

At least Sanders actually calls himself a socialist. But
Wisconsin has always been a terrible place to scare anybody by smearing
Democrats as socialists.

Historically, socialism has never really been a dirty word
here. America was once happy to incorporate the best political ideas brought
here by immigrants before Republicans began publicly advocating deporting millions
of them.

A progressive group of German socialists called the
Forty-Eighters became a powerful political force in Milwaukee when they came
here seeking democracy to escape from fascism after a failed European
revolution in 1848.

They brought to frontier Milwaukee progressive ideas about
the value of free speech, public education, equal rights for women and other
high-minded ideals that are still works in progress for democracy today.

Milwaukee went on to refute once and for all the claim that
democratic socialism might be a positive, idealistic system of government in
theory, but that it could never work in the real world.

Milwaukee ran extremely well for nearly four decades under
three socialist mayors. Emil Seidel, Milwaukee’s first elected in 1910, served
only two years, but he established the pattern of clean, efficient socialist
government. He ended brazen political corruption, passed a minimum wage and
began creating publicly funded services to improve the lives of ordinary
citizens and the community as a whole.

Many of the government innovations introduced by Milwaukee
socialists—publicly funded education, health services, libraries, parks and
recreation, sanitary sewers and regulation of toxic industrial waste, low-income
housing and much more—are now standard services of every American city.

Dan Hoan, Milwaukee’s longest-serving socialist mayor from
1916 to 1940, saw the city through a divisive war against Germany and the
devastation of the Great Depression. When Hoan appeared on the cover of
conservative Republican
Henry Luce’s Time magazine in 1936, he was identified as mayor of
“perhaps the best run city in the U.S.”

In a sense, Republicans are right when they attack popular
Democratic social programs such as Social Security and Medicare as socialist.

One reason the Socialist Party itself faded was that
Democrats adopted many of the socialists’ most popular and successful ideas to
attract support among working people.

That shift reached its zenith with President Franklin
Roosevelt’s New Deal to end the Depression, the nation’s disastrous economic
collapse under his Republican predecessor. Sound familiar?

Republicans up to and including the party’s current
presidential candidates have been trying to destroy successful publicly funded
Democratic social programs ever since. That includes Roosevelt’s Social
Security from the ’30s and Lyndon Johnson’s Medicare and civil rights
protections from the ’60s.

Now they’ve added President Obama’s affordable health care
subsidies to their hit list.

What Republicans get completely wrong, of course, is their
suggestion that programs growing out of democratic socialism that we all pay
for and benefit from are somehow un-American and alien to our democracy.

In fact, they’re some of the best changes we’ve made to
American democracy over a couple of centuries.

Clearly, we have to keep electing dangerous, left-wing,
radical, alien socialists like, say, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and any
other Democrat who has the crazy idea American democracy should be a government
of the people, by the people and for the people.

Tags

Joel McNally is a national-award-winning newspaper columnist and a longtime political commentator on Milwaukee radio and television. Since 1997, Joel has written a column for the Shepherd Express where he also was editor for two years.

Comments (18)

Joel, since today's political problem is basically...

Joel, since today's political problem is basically "taxpaying worker" versus "assisted non-worker", let me propose this alternative "tax and spend" plan:We currently have the negative perception that half the people pay taxes (and get nothing back) so they will fight taxes. Combine that with the perception that the other half appears to get all the benefit, but don't contribute a dime, then redistribution is even more disliked.To get the political will or "buy-in" of "tax and spend", we need to draw taxes from the upper 3/4 in a progressive way, and and at the same time give back with direct assistance or tax refunds to the bottom 3/4. It may look like a waste to have an overlap of the 50% in the middle, but the effect will be seen as a positive view of government redistribution when 3/4 of the people see money coming back to them in their name. And it will not seem so painful when it is also clear that 3/4 of the people are all contributing.And when there are tax credits, got to make sure that it is not just aid to minorities, aid to immigrants, aid to only the socially unfavorable, but must include aid to those who are favored and trying hard. How about a partial recovery for the down-sized worker who is working instead of only the non-worker? Better aid to married with 2 incomes over married one income or cohabiting with 2 incomes, aid to those belonging to a church, aid to those who feed the economy by spending their entire paycheck instead of holding some back in savings, aid to those who save in time deposits that must wait before withdrawing instead of loading up checking accounts that can be spent on a whim. Reward what normal people do that helps the private financial system.

WaukeshaGuymore than 2 years ago

Caveats... when aiding those who use private loans...

Caveats... when aiding those who use private loans, make sure the aid is only given to those who have kept current with those debts, reward them for paying the installment loans before visiting the liquor store.

WaukeshaGuymore than 2 years ago

Some of our Conservative bloggers like to claim th...

Some of our Conservative bloggers like to claim that Bernie just calls out the problem without calling out a solution, come to think of it, any challenger to political office does exactly that, does not matter if Liberal Democrat or Conservative Republican. Even Obama was accused of it, and both Republicans and Democrats dislike Washington DC because their chosen elected failed to provide relief for their voting base.What are the requirements of a "solution"? Cannot be something that helps both rich and poor alike, because the helpers of the rich will not be appeased until the poor are wiped off the planet, and the poor will not be satisfied until the rich have been made more poor than the poor... it's called vengeance! Harken back to the 1971 hit "I'd Love to Change the World" by Ten Years After with a line like "Tax the rich, feed the poor 'Til there are no rich no more"... funny it is not "til the poor are hungry no more". What does that say? More desire to knock down the rich than to really feed the poor.There never can be a solution for either base until there has been total genocide of the other base. Isn't that strange? Anyone who claims "survival of the fittest" is really expecting "non-survival of the loser".

WaukeshaGuymore than 2 years ago

Since our "problem" happens to be boiled down to "...

Since our "problem" happens to be boiled down to "taxpaying worker" versus "assisted non-worker", the best way to really fix that is to change what it takes to have a government check in your mailbox with your name on it. Only when your name is on the check does it become clear that you are getting help, not somebody on the other side of the tracks. Non-check help like teachers, cops, firefighters, road-builders, just does not count.Yes, when it costs money to print and deliver a check, the most efficient is to skim most from the top, give most to the bottom, and leave the Middle alone.Maybe it is more politically clear if they skimmed from the upper 3/4, and give back to the bottom 3/4. Kind of a waste to have that overlap of the 50% in the middle? Yes, but then you have 3/4 seeing the good value of government, knowing that 3/4 of the people are all contributing. Far better attitude than the perception that only half are contributing, and the half that does contribute is not getting a dime back. Political suicide to run redistribution like that.

WaukeshaGuymore than 2 years ago

We have a "free press", but it takes time and mone...

We have a "free press", but it takes time and money to put its words, facts, and opinions in front of the reader (media access costs money!) As a result, it is not worth the time and money of neither the hard-left nor the hard-right to "invest" resources into this unless it can be used as leverage to get a change in the public's behavior... such as where to spend your paycheck or how to vote, in a way that benefits their own more than others.That is why all articles are slanted one way or the other, and never objectively explain both the good facts AND THE BAD. It's like a one-sided snake-oil sales pitch or dating pickup line. Like old-school "a chicken in every pot, 2 cars in every garage". (Notice how quickly the ShepEx abandoned their "You be the Judge" program?) Got to "move the needle" to use for-profit corporate-speak.We have a system of a "fake democracy", where by being classified as a "Republic", we are not allowed to vote directly on each issue, topic, or rule. It means the people affected by the law must use a democratic vote to choose a hired gun to go to City Hall, County seat, state capitol, or Washington DC to act as a mouthpiece for us. (That is why lawyers were often the best choice, "hired gun" in the law arena is their true job.) We have to vote for a package deal, often the least offensive choice. Unfortunately, since money-motivated secret agendas are involved in deciding who even gets put on the ballot, "We the People" no longer have any real control, all we can do is keep up appearances that we have free and untarnished democratic elections.

WaukeshaGuymore than 2 years ago

That said, only those who can "concentrate wealth"...

That said, only those who can "concentrate wealth" will be able to get their message out, to fund a candidate, or to hire a lobbyist to talk directly to your lawmakers.Trump, we know how he got in, he concentrated his own wealth, similar to how Herb Kohl got in or Mary Burke.The rest had to "make deals" with those who "earned" wealth from their business dealings. Isn't it any wonder that those who got their money from a few want to prevent "money from many" from being concentrated in the same way? That means blocking union dues from being collected, and it means stripping the working man down to bare survival so they cannot afford to donate at rallies or through door-to-door collections.Keep that up and people like Bernie Sanders won't even get started. His donations averaged $43 each, no SuperPAC for him, SuperPACs just allow hiding the true source of concentrated wealth.

WaukeshaGuymore than 2 years ago

So called Gov Scott Walker said Wednesday that his...

So called Gov Scott Walker said Wednesday that his campaign is collapsing.

smoky tigermore than 2 years ago

He closes with "keep electing dangerous, left-wing...

He closes with "keep electing dangerous, left-wing, radical, alien socialists"? Well, anyone who champions the right of a "mere worker" as equal to the right of a boss or owner is just plain wrong in the Conservative world that ranks people in order from MVP down to cut-from-the-team.I had to do some investigating in Industrial Engineering, why American factories no longer hire these people, no longer do time-studies and use efficiency consultants. Not so much that this no longer works as much as no need to use American workers at all when there is the option of foreign labor that will undercut our minimum wage and relieve the business owner from having to provide benefits and pay their matching part of Social Security and Medicare. The rhetoric was that the Japanese beat the pants off of us because they allowed "the mere worker" to have some say-so in how their boss ordered them to do their jobs.It is a little hard for an owner to get the worker to cooperate when the attitude is "Workers are not supposed to have a choice, and bosses are not supposed to roll up their sleeves and work".Remember also that when we had a "Socialist mayor" there also was no such thing as "welfare". So if you had no money and had no sponsor to cover you, then you were either a worker earning your keep or you fell short and life starved you out of existence. All residents had an interest in making sure everyone had a job. This is why attitudes changed today... welfare.

WaukeshaGuymore than 2 years ago

I was listening to the 1st round of GOP debate on ...

I was listening to the 1st round of GOP debate on CNN, the one with Jindal, Santorum, Pataki, and Graham. What Trump did was allow these 4 to bring out the divisive rhetoric in full force. I cannot write the word here without being blocked, the word is spelled h-a-t-e. They brought it out strong, expressing this against muslims, immigrants, you name it. As if the only way to restore America to greatness is to throw a biblical flood of "holy bleach" on this land of the free.It also reminds me of a statement made by Walker,who wants to return America to"Freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion"The correct rhetoric implied by all these folks is:"Freedom of MY religion, not freedom of YOUR religion"

WaukeshaGuymore than 2 years ago

Americans love competition and they love a winner....

Americans love competition and they love a winner. We admire the best athletes, the best looking people, and the richest men. We believe in survival of the fittest while showing compassion for the widows, children and the crippled. Socialist won't work simply because it un-American and it hurts people who are highly competitive. Republican don't really dislike Obama. He's been our boy. He's kept our taxes, interest rates, minimum wage low. Sure he did mess with us with ACA but all that did was help us bust unions and bust sluggards down to part time.Bernie Sanders has lots of slick one-liners, is good at telling us our problems but doesn't offer any answers. Such as we should give free college to everyone. So much for giving scholarships to the smartest kids. They could just kick back and sleep through high school because college would be free. But then who ever was property managing the dorms would double their price making college expensive again. The cost to text books would skyrocket. Because there is no FREE college. Or raising the min wage. We do that all those trailer park side show buck teethed bromides would be out of a job because no one is going pay some bloated fat tart tatted to the teeth $15 a hour. Bernie need to understand that people are poor because they are fools with holes in their pockets. They are clueless as to how to make money, invest it, spend, or save it. Giving poor people money is like giving a gun to a monkey. They recklessly misuse it and then need to be bailed out. The best thing you can do for the poor is raise their discomfort level so they choose to stop their reckless behavior.

djlresearchmore than 2 years ago

You must be so proud of that little "dog whistle" ...

You must be so proud of that little "dog whistle" comment about the President. Did you give yourself a "gold star" for that one? And your "World According to Deejil" posts really are entertaining. Keep up the good work on both these message boards and in your efforts towards understanding how grocery stores work.

Duane Snydermore than 2 years ago

I actually don't have many complaints about the Pr...

I actually don't have many complaints about the President. Only Obanacare which has nearly doubled the cost of my health insurance. There are no programs to help lower the cost for the good people whose have chosen to earn more. Only for those who choose low wage work. On a positive note the stock market has does quite nicely under his watch. Most Americans have seen their net worth rise, non taxable through retirement accounts and unrealized capital gains. Our cost of capital is almost zero. Profits and dividends are at record levels. Gas is super cheap. Mortgages are cheap. Labor is cheap. I suppose paying $5000 more for health insurance is a small price compared to all the financial blessings the good people have gotten. I got a feeling it doesn't matter who is president, I'm going to find a way to win. The good people will always find a way to win. Because we are the good people who have chosen to work harder and smarter. We don't lay around drunk in our hammocks eating pizza, or going to some happy go lucky teenager job at McDonalds because we don't want to work hard No, we are the workers who have chosen to take jobs that require risk and responsibility and Obama has rewarded us. Bernie Sander is not for the good people, he only appeals to low income sluggards who want to be bailed out for their bad behavior.

djlresearchmore than 2 years ago

"Somebody had better tell those large, enthusiasti...

"Somebody had better tell those large, enthusiastic crowds that Republicans don’t think they’re a legitimate part of politics anymore."The Gimmedats will always be capable of turning up large crowds of people looking for their handout. George Webb gave free hamburgers away once and 168,194 showed up, so its hardly surprising a candidate advocating "making tuition free at public colleges and universities throughout America" had 10,000 show up in a City that has 43,000 students attending a public University.

John832more than 2 years ago

I think some boy band recently got 40,000 plus com...

I think some boy band recently got 40,000 plus come to Miller Park and pay big money to do it. And they are not even running for president. Sure Bernie can get 10,000 people - he is free. Hillary you need to pony up about $2000 to see her. The real winner is who raised the most cash as a result of their speech, not the number of people who attended. Everybody will look when their is a train wreck.

djlresearchmore than 2 years ago

I would guess that most Conservatives would have n...

I would guess that most Conservatives would have no problem with their tax dollars funding a public university if that same public university were not bound to admit on affirmative action, and were allowed to limit admissions to only those that had the Conservative establishment connections to actually turn that education into a private for-profit ruling class career. By that I mean children of managers and owners, not children of workers or welfare cases.

WaukeshaGuymore than 2 years ago

There you go again assuming Conservatives only opp...

There you go again assuming Conservatives only oppose helping people that are different. Guess what, I don't want my money taken to promote any ideology, regarding of whether I agree or disagree with it. I want my money to stay in my pocket and for people receiving an education to be the ones paying for it, just like I did when I went to school (at a private University, though in hindsight I should have saved myself $40k and gone to UWM).

John832more than 2 years ago

Then it should go without saying that you support ...

Then it should go without saying that you support eliminating Public education, along with "assistance" of any sort. You would have to follow through with eliminating the requirement of parents to send their children to school at all, much less age 16, especially when they can barely afford food, shelter, clothing. To keep shelter costs down, end the requirements to build homes to meet a fire code. To keep food costs down, end any requirements on clean air, clean water to go fishing in, clean lands to go hunting on, even safe food at Meijer's, Lena's, or your local farmer's market.If nobody should pay any taxes at all, how would you fund our military to defend you from foreign invaders? How would you fund police and fire protection? How would you keep public epidemics down by not having city sewer and water? (Which is what Milwaukee "sewer socialists" did.)

WaukeshaGuymore than 2 years ago

I do support ending public education. Parents sho...

I do support ending public education. Parents should be the ones handling education of their children, not taxpayers. It does not, however, follow that because there aren't public schools that there can't be an educational requirement. Parents can educate their children at home if they wish. Although I'd suggest that people shouldn't be having children in the first place if they aren't in a position to meet the needs of those kids.Some basic building codes make sense for things connected to the public electric grid and sewer, and for basic fire reasons in populated areas, but I have a large property that doesn't front any public roads, isn't connected to any utilities, so I see little reason why the Government should be telling me how much insulation my walls must have or the maximum spacing of my electrical outlets can be.Who said nobody should pay any taxes at all? Some amount of Government is a necessary evil to protect our borders and maintain law and order within them. This doesn't mean Government needs to spend 35% of the economic output of the entire nation. Bad things happen when Government gets that big.

POLL

Sign up to receive the latest from ShepherdExpress.com and win free tickets to area events!

Email Lists

Deals and Promotions

Dining

News and Views

Shepherd Events

Ticket Tuesday

Week in Review

Email Address

By submitting this form, you are granting: The Shepherd Express, 207 E. Buffalo St., Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 53202, United States, http://shepherdexpress.com permission to email you. You may unsubscribe via the link found at the bottom of every email. (See our Email Privacy Policy for details.) Emails are serviced by Constant Contact.